Dr. Erinn D. Lake, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

1. Critical Process Improvement (Strategic Study Groups – EUP)(Action Teams – UCO)Thursday, March 2, 20063:00 - 4:30 p.m.Friday, March 3, 200610:00 – 11:30 a.m. Dr. Erinn D. Lake, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

2. Introduction A critical component of institutional effectiveness is process improvement reform. This session will focus on the development of study groups for critical processes on campus. The purpose of these study groups will be to reduce cycle time and increase constituent satisfaction. Discussion will focus on the selection of topics, the proper mix of membership on teams, the development of improvement statements, flowcharting, and the appropriate formulation of recommendations.The session will conclude on how these recommendations become part of the planning process as well as how the advancements are communicated to the campus community.

3. The Power of Improvement

4. Why critical process review? • June 2004 – NACUBO Business Officer – “The Skinny on Getting Lean” • Article features University of Central Oklahoma and VP for Administration Steve Kreidler • Getting a key made required seven signatures. • Generating one work order took 19 pieces of paper. • Resources were too slim. • The Lean University was born – the idea is simple “Get rid of everything that doesn’t have value and identify world-class practices to solve problems.”

5. Dr. Mary Thornley, President of Trident Technical College, SC • 13 PITs – Process Improvement Teams. Finalist for RIT/USA Today Quality Cup Award. • Have TQM failures in higher education resulted more from flaws in the philosophy , or more from flawed application of the philosophy? • Organizations that adapt to change better have an advantage over competitors in the face of five economic trends: • Rising expectations. • Increased globalization. • Increased competition. • Burgeoning e-commerce. • Increased technical ability. • http://www.tridenttech.edu/

6. Give these questions some thought… • How many signatures are required to process a work order? A key request? • How long does it take to obtain course or program revision/approval? • How satisfied are students with the master schedule? Campus parking? The health center? • How many admissions applications exist on campus? How long does it take to process an application? • How much does your campus spend a year on postage? • How much does your campus spend on duplicating/printers/copiers/toner/paper, etc?

7. Our 9 Priorities 1.Increase enrollment to 8,000 students in the next several years through enhanced enrollment and retention strategies. 2. Enhance academic quality. 3. Enhance technology campus-wide. 4. Create a just community that is student-centered. 5. Enhance the Advancement arm of the institution. 6. Create a collaborative administrative team both on and off campus. 7. Create an inclusive planning process that ties budgeting to planning. 8. Increase diversity. 9. Enhance Graduate Studies.

10. Process Identification Strategic Study Groups 2004-2005 - Call for Proposals • Once again, it is time to call for proposed topics to be examined by new strategic study groups during the 2004-2005 academic year. Study suggestions focusing on key University processes may be emailed to mmogavero or lakee or may be mailed to the Office of University Planning, Institutional Research and Continuous Improvement, Reeder Hall, Lower Level. It is necessary that suggestions be received by Friday, October 1, 2004, to allow sufficient planning time to organize the study teams. • Annually, the outcomes of the strategic study groups are examined at our summer planning retreat while the on-going implementation of the study group recommendations are shared with the campus community via the periodic planning reports.

12. Ingredients of a Process Improvement Team • Charge • Description of current process • Baseline data describing activities and current length of time to complete process • A recommended strategy to streamline process which protects the academic and fiscal integrity of the University and respects all agreements with the unions that represent members of the campus community; and • A recommended policy or set of procedures that will produce results which are quantifiable in nature.

13. Ingredients of a Process Improvement Team(Continued) Team Composition • Team Members (no more than 9) • Guidance Team (1 or 2 individuals w/stake or responsibility in process) • Quality Advisor (Director of CI/Asst. VP)

14. 36 Study Groups Completed/In-Process at Edinboro University

15. Study Groups

16. Study Groups

17. Study Groups

22. Strategic Study Groups(SSG’s) • Waiting lists of volunteers to be on teams. • Over 50% of total team composition is now faculty. • 99% of recommendations accepted by the President. • 85% have been implemented to date. • Goal: To increase constituent satisfaction and reduce cycle time.

23. “The wearer best knows where the shoe pinches.” - Irish Proverb

24. Or as Walt Disney put it… “I happen to be kind of an inquisitive guy and when I see something I don’t like, I start thinking ‘why do they have to be like this and how can I improve them?’”

25. An Example: “Official” Business Card Process Primary Goal: Technical Quality

26. “Underground” Business Card Process Primary Goal: Speed, Ease

27. “Revised Official” Business Card Process Primary Goal: Technical Quality + Speed & Ease The Communications Department and the printer(s) develop specifications and contracts. The list is then distributed to faculty and staff. =================================================

28. Tools for Quality Improvement 12 minute video on Flow Diagrams from the American Management Association http://www.crmlearning.com/education/

29. Improvement Statements What’s an Improvement Statement? The improvement statement assists the members of the SSG in identifying the goal(s) of the project. Statements should be clear, objective, and should not include an implied solution.

30. Improvement Statements from 2000-2001…. • Course/Program Approval Process Reduce the period of time for course/program approval from Department to President while retaining quality and relevance of courses and programs approved.

31. Improvement Statements from 2000-2001…. • Grants Increase the number of grants received at Edinboro University by simplifying the grant writing process in order for faculty and staff to be more interested and productive in generating proposals, and to be more satisfied with the overall process.

32. Flowchart Example

33. Results • Each quarter action steps, costs and timelines are noted. • Periodic Planning Reports become the President’s Annual Report to the campus community. • The campus community must know the successes and failures in order to re-focus our efforts.

34. Example SSG Recommendations Work Study Awards Process Charge: The “issue” presented to the SSG was: How do we employ students? The team was also charged with working closely with the Targeted Recruitment SSG team in order to determine how students get here and how they secure work on campus. Improvement Statement: Define the student employment process in an attempt to increase campus (student and campus employer) satisfaction while maintaining compliance with Federal regulations.

35. Post-Dissertation Thoughts on CI Implementation

36. Cross Case Study • “A Cross Case Study of Continuous Improvement in Two Universities of The Pennsylvania State System Of Higher Education.” • The study findings related to the broader research question of how two selected universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education successfully implemented continuous improvement (CI) on their respective campuses.

37. University #1 and University #2 both implemented continuous improvement in terms of service. However, critical processes reviews focusing on teaching and learning did not occur on either campus, which may attribute to the lack of faculty participation on the CI teams. Spanbauer explains that the process of Continuous Improvement involves total commitment to reviewing and reengineering all aspects: administration, student services, and most importantly, the teaching process, while transforming the culture of the institution (Spanbauer, 1996, p. xiv-xv). CI Implementation

38. Both universities implemented CI on their campuses using an assumption of “event” change versus “process” change. Local CI “champions” were appointed and training sessions were held on campus. Employees either volunteered or were appointed to various process improvement teams. Reports were prepared and presentations were given to executive management. The State System of Higher Education seems to have driven much of the CI effort on the two campuses. CI Implementation

39. It seems to the researcher that the initial implementation stage was not as problematic for the institutions as sustaining the momentum surrounding continuous improvement proved to be. There are a variety of reasons why the institutions struggled to sustain CI on campus such as personnel changes, administration changes, resource scarcity and a new chancellor being appointed for the System; which significantly altered the environments in which the universities functioned. CI Implementation

40. A transactional leadership model seems more closely matched to the leadership styles both the president of University #1 and University #2 employed when implementing CI on their respective campuses. Both universities ranked high in terms of employee perceptions of continuous improvement during the quantitative Benson dissertation which took place in 1998. CI Implementation

41. However, long-term resource support was not identified and when the CI “champions” left campus or had a change in major job responsibilities, no one was identified as the CI successor or CI was added on top of other responsibilities which left employees feeling overwhelmed or “burned out.” Hall and Hord state that most changes in education take three to five years to implement at a high level and failure to address key aspects of the change process can possibly prevent successful implementation. CI Implementation

42. Change… • Kanter (2001) optimistically states that “my personal law of management, if not of life, is that everything can look like a failure in the middle. Every new idea runs into trouble before it reaches fruition.” • She explains that “one of the mistakes leaders make in change processes is to launch them and leave them.” This results in people giving up and chasing the next “enticing rainbow” (p. 274-275).

43. How to promote CI on campus… Kanter advises leaders to: • stay with change through the initial hurdles, • make appropriate adjustments midcourse • stay on the path to success, all the while staying attuned to the environment, planning assumptions, while paying attention to the long-term mission/vision.

44. Edinboro University’s SSG Publications • “Course Development Cycle Time: A Framework for Continuous Process Improvement,” Journal of Innovative Higher Education, Fall 2003, Volume 28, Number 1. • “Cost Reduction 101.” Quality Progress, October, 2003. • “Strategic Planning and Quality Improvement: Edinboro University’s Triangulated Institutional Effectiveness Model” with Dr. Michael A. Mogavero, Proceedings of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Universities 2001 Annual Meeting. • “A Case Study of Process Improvement at a Pennsylvania University” (with Dr. Michael A. Mogavero). Quality Progress, July, 2000.

45. Works in Progress… • NSF Grant Proposal on Group Decision Making software in an environment of accountability and high risk. • “Strategic Planning: Better Allocating University Resources to Create On-line Learning Environments for Non-Traditional Students in Underserved Rural Areas”

46. A Deming sentiment often used to close his seminars… “You have heard the words; you must find the way. It will never be perfect. Perfection is not for this world; it is for some other world. I hope what you have heard here today will haunt you the rest of your life. Then, I will have done my best.” • Quality Progress, August 2004, pg. 35.

47. Overcoming the 5 Dysfunctions of a Team • A Leadership Fable • Patrick Lencioni

48. Additional Resources • Edinboro University’s SSG Web Page • http://www.edinboro.edu/cwis/admin/upirci/finalweb/CI/SSG.htm • Penn State’s CQI Team Database • http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/database/index.htm • Good to Great, by Jim Collins • The Dance of Change, by Peter Senge. • Evolve, Rosabeth Moss Kanter

49. Additional Resources • The Executive Guide to Improvement and Change – ASQ – Beecroft, Duffy and Moran, Editors. • Failure is NOT an option – Six Principles That Guide Student Achievement in High-Performing Schools – Alan M. Blankstein. • The World is Flat – A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century – Thomas L. Friedman • Execution – Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan.

50. MicroSoft Visio